Interesting that Vettel radioed the team to say he should pit during the VSC.

I'm not convinced it would have won them the race. If Vettel would have pit under VSC and Hamilton hadn't then yes he would have won, if they both came in under VSC there would have been around an 8-10 second gap between them but Hamilton would have far better tyres. The gap would have closed I'm certain, passing would have been more difficult than it was though and it would have probably have given us a better battle/race, maybe Ferrari should listen to Vettel more often!

It is worrying though that will all the information available to them on the pit wall Vettel has actually out done them in strategy/quick thinking twice in one weekend.

Yes, it's not the first time the Ferrari strategist has made questionable calls

We also need to consider though, the strategists are playing the percentages. When his engine looked like going pop (or whatever their concern was in Qualifying), the strategist is thinking of risk versus reward. If there is a 10% risk we should keep him out, if its 90% we should bring him in (with a whole bunch of grey area in between). You can make the wrong call and get lucky, or you can make the right call and be unlucky. From the outside we can't tell.

Vettel may well have got lucky twice. And on the 2nd, even that was dependent on Merc. My memory is failing, was Bottas still alive at the VSC? Either way Merc had options, and they probably feared giving Hamilton clean air.. Bottas as a blocker would seal it though.

Bottas was out the equation, he was no worry. Like James Allen said if Ferrari pitted during the VSC it would have mainly benefited Ferrari. Both cars pit and Vettel keeps the same gap, Vettel pits and has new mediums to Hamilton's old mediums and the gap increases due to the VSC. Hamilton pits and look what happened.

These calls in strategy could make the difference come the end of the season.

I would certainly take what some say with a pinch of salt. I think you, for example, would struggle to admit that Hamilton ever has an advantage of any kind

Yeah he did miracles in 2014-16 in that donkey of a car.

See? Case in point!

I think even you would struggle to claim Lewis didn't have an advantage over any non-Merc cars in the last three years, but when things are closer it's not so straightforward.

No this year it's not straight forward for me at all but for you apparently it is as you can precisely ascertain the relative performance of the cars it seems and surprise surprise the Ferrari always seems to be the slower car.

I said the Ferrari seemed slower down the straight, which was supported by the video feed, especially when comparing the two overtakes. This seems to bother you unduly.

Because I couldn't equate that with the Ferrari being quicker down the straight in qualifying, maybe you see that as quite a simplistic view given your detailed reasoning of how cars can be different in the race than qualifying even though the teams can change nothing on the cars between qualifying and the race.

So I just can't get my head around what you are saying and feel more comfortable with the reasoning that Hamilton simply was able to carry more exit speed relative to the car in front when comparing the two overtakes.

I think even you would struggle to claim Lewis didn't have an advantage over any non-Merc cars in the last three years, but when things are closer it's not so straightforward.

No this year it's not straight forward for me at all but for you apparently it is as you can precisely ascertain the relative performance of the cars it seems and surprise surprise the Ferrari always seems to be the slower car.

I said the Ferrari seemed slower down the straight, which was supported by the video feed, especially when comparing the two overtakes. This seems to bother you unduly.

Because I couldn't equate that with the Ferrari being quicker down the straight in qualifying, maybe you see that as quite a simplistic view given your detailed reasoning of how cars can be different in the race than qualifying even though the teams can change nothing on the cars between qualifying and the race.

So I just can't get my head around what you are saying and feel more comfortable with the reasoning that Hamilton simply was able to carry more exit speed relative to the car in front when comparing the two overtakes.

Either you just can't resist the urge to be sarcastic and just do it anyway regardless of content, or you genuinely have a complete lack of understanding that the drivers have control over engine modes and where to use the ERS, as I've just explained to you. So which is it?

I think even you would struggle to claim Lewis didn't have an advantage over any non-Merc cars in the last three years, but when things are closer it's not so straightforward.

No this year it's not straight forward for me at all but for you apparently it is as you can precisely ascertain the relative performance of the cars it seems and surprise surprise the Ferrari always seems to be the slower car.

I said the Ferrari seemed slower down the straight, which was supported by the video feed, especially when comparing the two overtakes. This seems to bother you unduly.

Because I couldn't equate that with the Ferrari being quicker down the straight in qualifying, maybe you see that as quite a simplistic view given your detailed reasoning of how cars can be different in the race than qualifying even though the teams can change nothing on the cars between qualifying and the race.

So I just can't get my head around what you are saying and feel more comfortable with the reasoning that Hamilton simply was able to carry more exit speed relative to the car in front when comparing the two overtakes.

Either you just can't resist the urge to be sarcastic and just do it anyway regardless of content, or you genuinely have a complete lack of understanding that the drivers have control over engine modes and where to use the ERS, as I've just explained to you. So which is it?

No this year it's not straight forward for me at all but for you apparently it is as you can precisely ascertain the relative performance of the cars it seems and surprise surprise the Ferrari always seems to be the slower car.

I said the Ferrari seemed slower down the straight, which was supported by the video feed, especially when comparing the two overtakes. This seems to bother you unduly.

Because I couldn't equate that with the Ferrari being quicker down the straight in qualifying, maybe you see that as quite a simplistic view given your detailed reasoning of how cars can be different in the race than qualifying even though the teams can change nothing on the cars between qualifying and the race.

So I just can't get my head around what you are saying and feel more comfortable with the reasoning that Hamilton simply was able to carry more exit speed relative to the car in front when comparing the two overtakes.

Either you just can't resist the urge to be sarcastic and just do it anyway regardless of content, or you genuinely have a complete lack of understanding that the drivers have control over engine modes and where to use the ERS, as I've just explained to you. So which is it?

You think I was being sarcastic, that's me done with this discussion.

genuine question. Clearly if you are not being sarcastic then you genuinely do not understand that qualifying and the race may be different, which I have to say surprises me, given your depth of interest in motorsport.

Here are speed trap figures for the race. Note how the Ferrari isn't listed above the Mercedes:

Here are sector times for the race. Lewis was fastest in all sectors, and by some margin. S2 and S3 in particular he was miles ahead of anyone. If he'd hooked up all three sectors his ultimate race lap would have been 1:21.871, while Seb's would have been 1:23.140. That's a potential difference of 1.269 seconds. It's difficult for me to see how anyone would conclude the Ferrari was the faster car.

The comparison I find interesting is when they both ran mediums. Hamilton was 16 laps lighter but Vettel was averaging over 1 second per lap quicker. Hamilton was in the mid 25's with a few laps in the 26's. Vettel was in the mid 24's with a few laps in the low 24's. Not sure how meaningful that is as you can't be sure how much they were pushing at this phase.

The comparison I find interesting is when they both ran mediums. Hamilton was 16 laps lighter but Vettel was averaging over 1 second per lap quicker. Hamilton was in the mid 25's with a few laps in the 26's. Vettel was in the mid 24's with a few laps in the low 24's. Not sure how meaningful that is as you can't be sure how much they were pushing at this phase.

The comparison I find interesting is when they both ran mediums. Hamilton was 16 laps lighter but Vettel was averaging over 1 second per lap quicker. Hamilton was in the mid 25's with a few laps in the 26's. Vettel was in the mid 24's with a few laps in the low 24's. Not sure how meaningful that is as you can't be sure how much they were pushing at this phase.

Did Vettel never use Softs, then? I must have been viewing a different race.

Why don't you reply to the holes in your analysis rather than sarcasm. Notice when I did my comparison I noted that it was at different times of the race and differing fuel loads. Notice when you did yours nothing was mentioned of that.

Do you know which part of the race those fastest laps was set? What about fuel loads and tyres? You need to know all this information before any comparisons can be made.

I thought the Ferrari looked the faster race car it just happened to be that 3 key events happened in the race which helped Mercedes.

Also surely the best way to compare speed trap speeds is in quali when all cars have the same tyres, fuel loads and DRS. In the race all these variables can be different and with slipstream.

They can indeed. However, when discussing race pace surely it would seem sensible to look at the pace in the actual race, rather than try to use figures from qualifying?

How can race pace be compared when Vettel and Hamilton used different compounds at different times? Different fuel loads and more grip at the end of the race. To many factors to second guess. Both cars was very equal in the first stint between Hamilton and Vettel.

Do you know which part of the race those fastest laps was set? What about fuel loads and tyres? You need to know all this information before any comparisons can be made.

I thought the Ferrari looked the faster race car it just happened to be that 3 key events happened in the race which helped Mercedes.

Also surely the best way to compare speed trap speeds is in quali when all cars have the same tyres, fuel loads and DRS. In the race all these variables can be different and with slipstream.

They can indeed. However, when discussing race pace surely it would seem sensible to look at the pace in the actual race, rather than try to use figures from qualifying?

Which is more reliable, Alonso's race top speed or his qualifying one? I believe somebody said he recorded the 4th highest top speed in the race, why do you think he was able to do that?

When discussing the race, race pace, of course. How is this even a question?

Some cars operate better on full tanks, some on empty. Turning down the engine and judicious use of ERS has already been explained, as has tyres. Yet you would discard all of this in favour of the fact that if a car is faster through the speed trap in qualifying it must be faster during the race?

Do you know which part of the race those fastest laps was set? What about fuel loads and tyres? You need to know all this information before any comparisons can be made.

I thought the Ferrari looked the faster race car it just happened to be that 3 key events happened in the race which helped Mercedes.

Also surely the best way to compare speed trap speeds is in quali when all cars have the same tyres, fuel loads and DRS. In the race all these variables can be different and with slipstream.

They can indeed. However, when discussing race pace surely it would seem sensible to look at the pace in the actual race, rather than try to use figures from qualifying?

How can race pace be compared when Vettel and Hamilton used different compounds at different times? Different fuel loads and more grip at the end of the race. To many factors to second guess. Both cars was very equal in the first stint between Hamilton and Vettel.

But one variable you resolutely cling to is qualifying, irrespective of which part of the race we are discussing? This makes more sense to you?

Do you know which part of the race those fastest laps was set? What about fuel loads and tyres? You need to know all this information before any comparisons can be made.

I thought the Ferrari looked the faster race car it just happened to be that 3 key events happened in the race which helped Mercedes.

Also surely the best way to compare speed trap speeds is in quali when all cars have the same tyres, fuel loads and DRS. In the race all these variables can be different and with slipstream.

They can indeed. However, when discussing race pace surely it would seem sensible to look at the pace in the actual race, rather than try to use figures from qualifying?

How can race pace be compared when Vettel and Hamilton used different compounds at different times? Different fuel loads and more grip at the end of the race. To many factors to second guess. Both cars was very equal in the first stint between Hamilton and Vettel.

But one variable you resolutely cling to is qualifying, irrespective of which part of the race we are discussing? This makes more sense to you?

You said race pace or do you just mean speed trap times? The fact Alonso was 4th quickest in the speed traps with a Honda engine shows me how much more reliable qualifying is to the races when looking at speed trap times.

Do you know which part of the race those fastest laps was set? What about fuel loads and tyres? You need to know all this information before any comparisons can be made.

I thought the Ferrari looked the faster race car it just happened to be that 3 key events happened in the race which helped Mercedes.

Also surely the best way to compare speed trap speeds is in quali when all cars have the same tyres, fuel loads and DRS. In the race all these variables can be different and with slipstream.

They can indeed. However, when discussing race pace surely it would seem sensible to look at the pace in the actual race, rather than try to use figures from qualifying?

Which is more reliable, Alonso's race top speed or his qualifying one? I believe somebody said he recorded the 4th highest top speed in the race, why do you think he was able to do that?

When discussing the race, race pace, of course. How is this even a question?

Some cars operate better on full tanks, some on empty. Turning down the engine and judicious use of ERS has already been explained, as has tyres. Yet you would discard all of this in favour of the fact that if a car is faster through the speed trap in qualifying it must be faster during the race?

We were discussing top speeds. Notice the bolded quote.

Which is a more reliable and representative top speed figure. Alonso's qualifying top speed or race one?

Do you know which part of the race those fastest laps was set? What about fuel loads and tyres? You need to know all this information before any comparisons can be made.

I thought the Ferrari looked the faster race car it just happened to be that 3 key events happened in the race which helped Mercedes.

Also surely the best way to compare speed trap speeds is in quali when all cars have the same tyres, fuel loads and DRS. In the race all these variables can be different and with slipstream.

They can indeed. However, when discussing race pace surely it would seem sensible to look at the pace in the actual race, rather than try to use figures from qualifying?

Which is more reliable, Alonso's race top speed or his qualifying one? I believe somebody said he recorded the 4th highest top speed in the race, why do you think he was able to do that?

When discussing the race, race pace, of course. How is this even a question?

Some cars operate better on full tanks, some on empty. Turning down the engine and judicious use of ERS has already been explained, as has tyres. Yet you would discard all of this in favour of the fact that if a car is faster through the speed trap in qualifying it must be faster during the race?

We were discussing top speeds. Notice the bolded quote.

Which is a more reliable and representative top speed figure. Alonso's qualifying top speed or race one?

I know what we were discussing, thanks. Top speed was part of it, as was overall pace. But every time what happens in the race is more relevant than qualifying. Hell, even track temperatures can influence a car's behaviour, but you're going to cling to times set the previous day as the only barometer of a car's performance? Please

Qualifying is the only time when all things are equal. Same tyres, temps, DRS etc. It's the best time to compare speed trap speeds.

In the race we have DRS, fuel loads, tyre wear, tyre compound, circuit grip etc. Just too many variables. Alonso being 4th just explains it all.

I don't see how some people can't understand this. It's like Alonso getting DRS, slipstream, soft tyres, low fuel and comparing it to Hamilton on mediums and having no DRS and slipstream. Alonso has the faster speed trap time so let's say his car was faster.

I know what we were discussing, thanks. Top speed was part of it, as was overall pace. But every time what happens in the race is more relevant than qualifying. Hell, even track temperatures can influence a car's behaviour, but you're going to cling to times set the previous day as the only barometer of a car's performance? Please[/quote]

Firstly I'll answer that question.

Quite clearly not as I mentioned in the other thread many variables at play in the race "Also, top speed will also be reliant on tyre life and last corner exit at most tracks;-new tyres-soft compound- late in race (lighter car)- slipstream length"

You always ignore any question asked of you in a discussion... Now everybody, 3rd time lucky and of asking it. Will Zoue answer this time...

Which is a more reliable and representative top speed figure. Alonso's qualifying top speed or race one?

Qualifying is the only time when all things are equal. Same tyres, temps, DRS etc. It's the best time to compare speed trap speeds.

In the race we have DRS, fuel loads, tyre wear, tyre compound, circuit grip etc. Just too many variables. Alonso being 4th just explains it all.

I don't see how some people can't understand this. It's like Alonso getting DRS, slipstream, soft tyres, low fuel and comparing it to Hamilton on mediums and having no DRS and slipstream. Alonso has the faster speed trap time so let's say his car was faster.

They can understand it, they just have trouble ceding the smallest of points in a discussion

I know what we were discussing, thanks. Top speed was part of it, as was overall pace. But every time what happens in the race is more relevant than qualifying. Hell, even track temperatures can influence a car's behaviour, but you're going to cling to times set the previous day as the only barometer of a car's performance? Please

Firstly I'll answer that question.

Quite clearly not as I mentioned in the other thread many variables at play in the race "Also, top speed will also be reliant on tyre life and last corner exit at most tracks;-new tyres-soft compound- late in race (lighter car)- slipstream length"

You always ignore any question asked of you in a discussion... Now everybody, 3rd time lucky and of asking it. Will Zoue answer this time...

Which is a more reliable and representative top speed figure. Alonso's qualifying top speed or race one?

I have answered it. Why are you making things up?

Figures taken during a race are more reliable and representative than figures taken during qualifying when discussing relative performance during a race. Is this simple enough for even you to understand?

Last edited by Zoue on Thu May 18, 2017 1:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Qualifying is the only time when all things are equal. Same tyres, temps, DRS etc. It's the best time to compare speed trap speeds.

In the race we have DRS, fuel loads, tyre wear, tyre compound, circuit grip etc. Just too many variables. Alonso being 4th just explains it all.

I don't see how some people can't understand this. It's like Alonso getting DRS, slipstream, soft tyres, low fuel and comparing it to Hamilton on mediums and having no DRS and slipstream. Alonso has the faster speed trap time so let's say his car was faster.

They can understand it, they just have trouble ceding the smallest of points in a discussion

I know what we were discussing, thanks. Top speed was part of it, as was overall pace. But every time what happens in the race is more relevant than qualifying. Hell, even track temperatures can influence a car's behaviour, but you're going to cling to times set the previous day as the only barometer of a car's performance? Please

Firstly I'll answer that question.

Quite clearly not as I mentioned in the other thread many variables at play in the race "Also, top speed will also be reliant on tyre life and last corner exit at most tracks;-new tyres-soft compound- late in race (lighter car)- slipstream length"

You always ignore any question asked of you in a discussion... Now everybody, 3rd time lucky and of asking it. Will Zoue answer this time...

Which is a more reliable and representative top speed figure. Alonso's qualifying top speed or race one?

I have answered it. Why are you making things up?

Figures taken during a race are more reliable and representative than figures taken during qualifying when discussing relative performance during a race. Is this simple enough for even you to understand?

Here are sector times for the race. Lewis was fastest in all sectors, and by some margin. S2 and S3 in particular he was miles ahead of anyone. If he'd hooked up all three sectors his ultimate race lap would have been 1:21.871, while Seb's would have been 1:23.140. That's a potential difference of 1.269 seconds. It's difficult for me to see how anyone would conclude the Ferrari was the faster car.

Those are really big gaps! Though to be fair, it didn't seem like Mercedes could maintain such a staggering pace over the long run. Based on practice times, I thought they were way ahead, but Ferrari made a great comeback. Or at least Vettel did. Kimi did not get a chance to show his pace (although he made at least one fan happy with a meeting and photo-op). I think that Ferrari is a slightly faster car in race trim at the moment given that Vettel easily lost 10+ seconds with Bottas slowing him down and the (un)timely deployment of the virtual safety car. We finally have a competitive season on our hands... I don't think the rules are perfect, not without putting a premium on mechanical grip, there is much work to be done, but durable tires coupled with well-placed DRS zones seem to be working at a basic level at least.

Here are sector times for the race. Lewis was fastest in all sectors, and by some margin. S2 and S3 in particular he was miles ahead of anyone. If he'd hooked up all three sectors his ultimate race lap would have been 1:21.871, while Seb's would have been 1:23.140. That's a potential difference of 1.269 seconds. It's difficult for me to see how anyone would conclude the Ferrari was the faster car.

Those are really big gaps! Though to be fair, it didn't seem like Mercedes could maintain such a staggering pace over the long run. Based on practice times, I thought they were way ahead, but Ferrari made a great comeback. Or at least Vettel did. Kimi did not get a chance to show his pace (although he made at least one fan happy with a meeting and photo-op). I think that Ferrari is a slightly faster car in race trim at the moment given that Vettel easily lost 10+ seconds with Bottas slowing him down and the (un)timely deployment of the virtual safety car. We finally have a competitive season on our hands... I don't think the rules are perfect, not without putting a premium on mechanical grip, there is much work to be done, but durable tires coupled with well-placed DRS zones seem to be working at a basic level at least.

You are right. Hamiltons best s2 and s3 times were accomplished on his outlap while trying to undercut vettel. He never showed that kind of pace again for the remainder of the race, even when he set fastest lap. Basically those sector times were good enough to make q3 that weekend. So he probably used the qualifying engine mode on that outlap then turned things down afterwards.

Here are sector times for the race. Lewis was fastest in all sectors, and by some margin. S2 and S3 in particular he was miles ahead of anyone. If he'd hooked up all three sectors his ultimate race lap would have been 1:21.871, while Seb's would have been 1:23.140. That's a potential difference of 1.269 seconds. It's difficult for me to see how anyone would conclude the Ferrari was the faster car.

Those are really big gaps! Though to be fair, it didn't seem like Mercedes could maintain such a staggering pace over the long run. Based on practice times, I thought they were way ahead, but Ferrari made a great comeback. Or at least Vettel did. Kimi did not get a chance to show his pace (although he made at least one fan happy with a meeting and photo-op). I think that Ferrari is a slightly faster car in race trim at the moment given that Vettel easily lost 10+ seconds with Bottas slowing him down and the (un)timely deployment of the virtual safety car. We finally have a competitive season on our hands... I don't think the rules are perfect, not without putting a premium on mechanical grip, there is much work to be done, but durable tires coupled with well-placed DRS zones seem to be working at a basic level at least.

Pointless comparison from Zoue considering that Hamilton went on to the soft (faster tyre) for the final stint (when he was on his lightest fuel load), whereas Vettel did not. Comparing fastest laps has always been pointless in the non-refuelling era.

Here are sector times for the race. Lewis was fastest in all sectors, and by some margin. S2 and S3 in particular he was miles ahead of anyone. If he'd hooked up all three sectors his ultimate race lap would have been 1:21.871, while Seb's would have been 1:23.140. That's a potential difference of 1.269 seconds. It's difficult for me to see how anyone would conclude the Ferrari was the faster car.

Those are really big gaps! Though to be fair, it didn't seem like Mercedes could maintain such a staggering pace over the long run. Based on practice times, I thought they were way ahead, but Ferrari made a great comeback. Or at least Vettel did. Kimi did not get a chance to show his pace (although he made at least one fan happy with a meeting and photo-op). I think that Ferrari is a slightly faster car in race trim at the moment given that Vettel easily lost 10+ seconds with Bottas slowing him down and the (un)timely deployment of the virtual safety car. We finally have a competitive season on our hands... I don't think the rules are perfect, not without putting a premium on mechanical grip, there is much work to be done, but durable tires coupled with well-placed DRS zones seem to be working at a basic level at least.

Pointless comparison from Zoue considering that Hamilton went on to the soft (faster tyre) for the final stint (when he was on his lightest fuel load), whereas Vettel did not. Comparing fastest laps has always been pointless in the non-refuelling era.

Indeed! I don't know how someone well versed in the nuances of F1 could ignore this very important factor. Wilful ignorance perhaps? One does need to consider that Vettel used the faster tyre when the car was heavier so he couldn't set times as fast as Hamilton's, nor could he later on when the car was lighter as by then bel was on the slower tyre. If they both had mirrored each other's strategy then we could make representative comparisons.

Here are sector times for the race. Lewis was fastest in all sectors, and by some margin. S2 and S3 in particular he was miles ahead of anyone. If he'd hooked up all three sectors his ultimate race lap would have been 1:21.871, while Seb's would have been 1:23.140. That's a potential difference of 1.269 seconds. It's difficult for me to see how anyone would conclude the Ferrari was the faster car.

Those are really big gaps! Though to be fair, it didn't seem like Mercedes could maintain such a staggering pace over the long run. Based on practice times, I thought they were way ahead, but Ferrari made a great comeback. Or at least Vettel did. Kimi did not get a chance to show his pace (although he made at least one fan happy with a meeting and photo-op). I think that Ferrari is a slightly faster car in race trim at the moment given that Vettel easily lost 10+ seconds with Bottas slowing him down and the (un)timely deployment of the virtual safety car. We finally have a competitive season on our hands... I don't think the rules are perfect, not without putting a premium on mechanical grip, there is much work to be done, but durable tires coupled with well-placed DRS zones seem to be working at a basic level at least.

Pointless comparison from Zoue considering that Hamilton went on to the soft (faster tyre) for the final stint (when he was on his lightest fuel load), whereas Vettel did not. Comparing fastest laps has always been pointless in the non-refuelling era.

Indeed! I don't know how someone well versed in the nuances of F1 could ignore this very important factor. Wilful ignorance perhaps? One does need to consider that Vettel used the faster tyre when the car was heavier so he couldn't set times as fast as Hamilton's, nor could he later on when the car was lighter as by then bel was on the slower tyre. If they both had mirrored each other's strategy then we could make representative comparisons.

It makes a exact comparison more difficult, true, but the size of the gap is still meaningful

I said the Ferrari seemed slower down the straight, which was supported by the video feed, especially when comparing the two overtakes. This seems to bother you unduly.

Because I couldn't equate that with the Ferrari being quicker down the straight in qualifying, maybe you see that as quite a simplistic view given your detailed reasoning of how cars can be different in the race than qualifying even though the teams can change nothing on the cars between qualifying and the race.

So I just can't get my head around what you are saying and feel more comfortable with the reasoning that Hamilton simply was able to carry more exit speed relative to the car in front when comparing the two overtakes.

Either you just can't resist the urge to be sarcastic and just do it anyway regardless of content, or you genuinely have a complete lack of understanding that the drivers have control over engine modes and where to use the ERS, as I've just explained to you. So which is it?

You think I was being sarcastic, that's me done with this discussion.

genuine question. Clearly if you are not being sarcastic then you genuinely do not understand that qualifying and the race may be different, which I have to say surprises me, given your depth of interest in motorsport.

Here are speed trap figures for the race. Note how the Ferrari isn't listed above the Mercedes:

One reason why the Ferrari could of been slower in the race on the straights in qualifying is that it was an ICE that had done every session of the season so far like Bottas's so I'd be surprised if they didn't hold back a bit and save the extra oomph for the crucial bits like passing Bottas and defending from Lewis.

2/3ths down in S1 is the figure I read on some Ferrari threads through holding back on the ICE but I didn't see a source for this one.

If they just ran that old ICE as hard as usual I'd be surprised, it's a big gamble and we saw what happened to Bottas.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Because I couldn't equate that with the Ferrari being quicker down the straight in qualifying, maybe you see that as quite a simplistic view given your detailed reasoning of how cars can be different in the race than qualifying even though the teams can change nothing on the cars between qualifying and the race.

So I just can't get my head around what you are saying and feel more comfortable with the reasoning that Hamilton simply was able to carry more exit speed relative to the car in front when comparing the two overtakes.

Either you just can't resist the urge to be sarcastic and just do it anyway regardless of content, or you genuinely have a complete lack of understanding that the drivers have control over engine modes and where to use the ERS, as I've just explained to you. So which is it?

You think I was being sarcastic, that's me done with this discussion.

genuine question. Clearly if you are not being sarcastic then you genuinely do not understand that qualifying and the race may be different, which I have to say surprises me, given your depth of interest in motorsport.

Here are speed trap figures for the race. Note how the Ferrari isn't listed above the Mercedes:

Either you just can't resist the urge to be sarcastic and just do it anyway regardless of content, or you genuinely have a complete lack of understanding that the drivers have control over engine modes and where to use the ERS, as I've just explained to you. So which is it?

You think I was being sarcastic, that's me done with this discussion.

genuine question. Clearly if you are not being sarcastic then you genuinely do not understand that qualifying and the race may be different, which I have to say surprises me, given your depth of interest in motorsport.

Here are speed trap figures for the race. Note how the Ferrari isn't listed above the Mercedes: